IMPORTANT POINT
With respect to eight types of chocolates where labelling found to be defective, petitioner shall cure within customs warehouse by affixing non-detachable label giving all particulars as necessary under Labelling Regulations.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.—Belgium is known for its chocolates amongst other things. And, Guylian is a renowned brand of Belgium chocolates, which are sold in several countries. As coveted as these chocolates may be, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FSSAI’) has found these chocolates to be non-compliant with the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Regulations made there under. The petitioner being aggrieved on account of non-clearance of these chocolates, has filed the present petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to clear and deliver the consignments imported by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had imported assorted chocolates manufactured by Chocolatier Guylian N.Y. weighing approximately 4,000 kgs. These chocolates were essentially of 20 different types. Whereas, four types of the said chocolates were cleared, FSSAI had, by its letter dated 5.5.2014, refused to grant a no-objection certificate to the remaining 16 types of chocolates. According to FSSAI, eight types of chocolates were found to be non-compliant with the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labelling Regulations’) and the balance eight types of chocolates were found to be non-compliant with the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Food and Additives Regulations’).

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of importing and selling of chocolates of international brands. On 30.11.2012, FSSAI granted a license (being No.10012022001121) to the petitioner under the category of Distributor and Importer and the same is valid upto 29.11.2017.

4. The petitioner imported 20 different ‘Guylian’ chocolates of various assortments weighing approx. 4000 Kgs. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘goods’) under Invoice No.SO 15765 dated 5.11.2013 to be delivered at ICD Dadri. The said goods arrived at the facility of respondent No.2 at ICD Dadri on 3.1.2014 and the petitioner filed a bill of entry BE No.4295463 dated 8.1.2014, with respondent No.2.

5. On 17.1.2014, the petitioner submitted an online application seeking inspection and issuance of a No-Objection Certificate, in respect of goods. In this context, various communications were also exchanged between the petitioner and FSSAI during 17.1.2014 to 4.3.2014. The petitioner, by its letter dated 5.3.2014 and also bye-mails dated 6.3.2014 and 13.3.2014 requested FSSAI to release the goods citing that the goods in question were perishable in nature with limited shelf life and a consignment of similar chocolates from the same manufacturer imported earlier, was found to be in conformity with the parameters set by FSSAI and cleared.

6. The Assistant Commissioner (Customs) respondent No.2, by its letter dated 22.3.2014, directed FSSAI to collect samples of the goods as FSSAI was neither collecting samples of goods nor accepting the samples that were sent to them. Subsequently on 7.4.2014, the goods were inspected by FSSAI and samples of only four types of chocolates out of twenty, types of chocolates were taken and tested by FSSAI and a NOC with respect to those four types of chocolates was issued. FSSAI did not draw samples of eight types of chocolates citing labelling defects and no reason was assigned for not drawing samples of the remaining eight types of chocolates. Therefore, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 30.4.2014 to FSSAI to assign reasons for not drawing samples of those eight types of chocolates.

7. In response, FSSAI addressed a letter dated 5.5.2014 to respondent No.2 stating that NOC with respect to eight types of chocolates was refused on the ground that the mandatory requirement, prescribed under the Labelling Regulations,• of providing the ‘Date of Manufacturing’ on the label had not been complie